https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80660 Interpretation of sub-rule (9) of Rule 56A raised a debatable question of law on whether the bar applied merely because MODVAT credit was availed for different materials, or only when the same inputs were covered by both schemes. The Tribunal treated the rival constructions as substantial and held the issue fit for reference. It also examined whether the amendment made on 15-4-1987 was clarificatory in nature and therefore capable of retrospective operation. On that basis, the specified questions were directed to be referred to the High Court. en-us Wed, 23 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:51:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80660 Interpretation of sub-rule (9) of Rule 56A raised a debatable question of law on whether the bar applied merely because MODVAT credit was availed for different materials, or only when the same inputs were covered by both schemes. The Tribunal treated the rival constructions as substantial and held the issue fit for reference. It also examined whether the amendment made on 15-4-1987 was clarificatory in nature and therefore capable of retrospective operation. On that basis, the specified questions were directed to be referred to the High Court. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80660